Scientists Predict 0.3C of Dangerous Warming if President Trump Pulls Out of Paris

Scientists are worried that in 100 years, the effect on global temperature might almost be measurable, if the USA pulls out of the Paris Agreement.

Scientists explain what will happen if Donald Trump pulls out of Paris climate change agreement

The Earth will get dangerously warm even sooner if the U.S pulls out of pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution

Seth Borenstein Saturday 27 May 2017 22:48 BST

Earth is likely to hit more dangerous levels of warming even sooner if the US pulls back from its pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution, scientists said. That’s because America contributes so much to rising temperatures.

…

Calculations suggest it could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tonnes of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year. When it adds up year after year, scientists said that is enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather.

“If we lag, the noose tightens,” said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, co-editor of the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change.

One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America would add as much as half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.

Scientists are split on how reasonable and likely that scenario is.

…

Another computer simulation team put the effect of the U.S. pulling out somewhere between 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (.18 to .36 degrees Fahrenheit).

The scientists interviewed by The Independent are also worried a US walkout might trigger a general walkout, which speaks volumes about the alleged international commitment to climate action.

But the impact of the US contribution to climate change is clear. Even if we accept exaggerated climate models, all that international angst, all that politicking and doom mongering, all those US jobs at risk, to deliver a temperature shift so tiny that it will take a century to even have a chance of detecting it.

219 thoughts on “Scientists Predict 0.3C of Dangerous Warming if President Trump Pulls Out of Paris”

One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions

One group of activist pseudo-scientists took the most extremely sensitive model they could find to generate a “worst case senario” which the press could jump on to make meaningless, biased, unscientific claims.

Why didn’t they also do a “best case scenario” if they were pretending to be scientific? Same old alarmist crap.

Trump’s constant delaying looks like someone holding out for a “better deal”. There is better deal on Paris, it is a frawwd. Trump needs to stop pussyfooting around and live up to his campaign rhetoric. He has been thwarted on many of his key policies so far, he needs a win.

This is one thing he can do with the stroke a pen, in the same way the Obama got everyone into this mess. All he needs to do is post official 12 months notice that US is pulling out of UNFCCC.

“All he needs to do is post official 12 months notice that US is pulling out of UNFCCC.”

I would disagree. Using the “official” opt out would give legitimacy to this type of agreement. Trump should inform the world as to how treaties work in our Country and state it has no legitimacy so it will simply be ignored. This will also hinder future President’s from signing such things as the world will know they are meaningless without the required approval in the Senate.

Actually, IIRC, he has to pull out of the UNFCC, according to US law, any UN organization that recognizes the “Palestine state”, the President is required to withdraw our membership and funding from said organization.

Uh, Dave, it isn’t a legally binding treaty. It the Senate doesn’t approve of it, it isn’t a treaty… it’s a piece of paper that one president signed that no one has to honor. This was BY DESIGN.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
[quote]
The Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” (Article II, section 2). The Constitution’s framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate’s advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division.
[/quote]

The models appear to be running warm by a factor of about 2 to 3, so the already small predicted/projected increase may be even less than claimed.

That being the case, the other computer simulation putting the effect of the U.S. pulling out somewhere between 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (.18 to .36 degrees Fahrenheit), when taking account that the models are running too warm, may more realistically be no more than about 0.05degC by the end of the century.

Paris is a busted flush since none of the top 4 CO2 emitting countries will in practice reduce CO2 emissions between now and 2030.

The effect is well documented in the laboratory. With a little inference, liberal extrapolation, and billion dollar unskilled models… presto: catastrophic anthropogenic global warming caused by a cumulative radiative “greenhouse” effect.

This time yesterday it was supposed to be raining here right now. There’s not a cloud in the sky. If they can’t get the weather models right, the ones they’ve worked on real, real hard for decades, how do they expect to predict climate which seems to be quite a bit more complicated?
Course we could just sign the treaty. Make happy faces all around, then ignore it like India and China and….every other country will do.

Unless your laboratory is the size of a planet, not it has not. We know the EM absorption and emission characteristics of CO2. We do not know all of how it fits into the entire complexity that is the Earth’s atmosphere. Global temperatures are a very complex phenomonon and not controlled by any one atmospheric constituent.

While the effect is well documented and has even been measured, not modeled, the effect is slight. An increase of 22 ppm over ten years saw an increase in CO2 related radiative forcing of 0.2 watts per square meter, measurements being made in Oklahoma and Alaska over the ten years of the study. Compared to the other numbers in the energy balance of incident energy and black body radiation, two tenths of a watt per square meter is almost nothing.

“nn May 27, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Ironically, the supercomputers are amplifying the effect.”

Really!?

And how does a “supercomputer” amplify?

Neither the code nor the data should care what computer is running the program.

If the code is “adjusted” specifically to run on a “supercomputer”; expanded registers, long integer, long double work arounds?

In other words; programs that are nor validated, verified or proven. Code allowances that prevent “in production” versus “in development” separation with the resulting losses of run and data quality; simply described as GIGO!

“Ironically, the supercomputers are amplifying the effect.” Indeed they are, in more ways than one. The very act of running supercomputers for hours takes electricity which is generated by fossil fuels (coal, mostly) which produces CO2 which warms the planet. Shut those things down!!

Not in the temperature datasets, but there is a CO2 signal in the outgoing radiation measurements in the CO2 (and CH4) bands. Thus CO2 has an effect on the outgoing radiation, but hardly measurable in temperatures…

Yes and no, CO2 may have an effect at a few narrow wavelengths but it is what happens in the rest of the spectrum for example a 1% change there might be balanced by a 0.001% change (virtually immeasurable) if the energy diverted by CO2 just reroutes by some other mechanism, say water emissions or direct broadband surface to space.

Oh, WOWEEE, …. Ferdinand, ….. and I betcha that there is also a H2O vapor signal in the outgoing radiation measurements in the H2O vapor bands. Thus H2O vapor has an effect on the outgoing radiation, but hardly measurable in temperatures…

And I also betcha that there is considerable quantities of “surface emitted” Infrared Radiation frequencies detectable in the outgoing radiation measurements in the IR bands. (Especially in desert areas of the earth’s surface)

The question is, Ferdinand, iffen one is detecting/measuring those “outgoing” Infrared Radiation frequencies at the TOA (top of atmosphere), ….. how is it possible for them to determine the actual “source emitter” of said outgoing IR frequencies?

Surely there is considerable quantities of “surface emitted” Infrared Radiation frequencies that arrive at the TOA (top of atmosphere), ……… where they are detected/recorded. ……without ever making contact with a per se, …. molecule of atmospheric “greenhouse gas”. RIGHT?

Not in the temperature datasets, but there is a CO2 signal in the outgoing radiation measurements in the CO2 (and CH4) bands. Thus CO2 has an effect on the outgoing radiation, but hardly measurable in temperatures…”

• Beginning in what year? 2014-2015 OCO-2 satellite?
• Tracked for how many years? As in inconvenient OCO-2 data deep sixed?
• What changes have occurred over that period?
• At what altitudes are these exiting emissions occurring?
• What actual experimental work has been conducted on the “lapse rate”?
• What is the total wattage of those alleged CO2 emissions?
• What do diurnal/seasonal/annual outgoing CO2 emission graphs look like? Are we to expect more “actual” CO2 measurements buried away while preferred NOAA models produce their graphs?

But spectrum frequencies are not exclusive to one element/molecule.
Using a simple chart showing “only” GHG gas emission frequencies as choices, leaves one to question exactly what “outgoing radiation measurements” are actually measuring?

So, are we to expect the NOAA past performance of using bias and prejudice for more “estimates and guesses” to allocate XX radiation frequencies to CO2 & CH4?

Practically no-one is saying CO2 does not cause, ceteris paribus, any warming. Not even our host as far as I know, even though Wikipedia does not seem to agree — using hostile sources. But it is nice that you bring up your opinion every once and while so that we’ll remember that it is ‘practically no-one’.

I, for one, am happy declare there has been some warming over the past century, and probably more than half of it would not have been there without the CO2 effect. (IPCC) According to some more alarmist views, the overall trend of the past century could well have been net-negative without CO2. I’m happy that cooling didn’t happen.

I welcome this small warming and the increased CO2 which both have significantly increased the net productivity of agriculture and forestry. Both are crucial when human population is still growing, even though the strongest growth expectations are now limited mostly to the Isl*mic region and central Africa.

In order not to let those people starve and in order to even stop population growth, we need more labour-free, that is, cheap energy, which coal is going to produce – according to all realistic future projections – for decades to come.

It is rubbish to say we can afford CO2 free energy. It is possible for the richest of the Western countries (who won’t do it, just look at Obama’s footprint), but it will not be globally possible for a long time if ever. Paris accord is just one little mistake by Obama who got his Nobel before he ‘healed’ the global warming or sea levels. It is still good to know you can get a Nobel peace prize by posing well in advance while failing totally in what you were supposed to do.

The missing signature of course means the so called computer models of climate and observations don’t match so far. But I don’t think we can expect that either. If models provide a hint that some warming happens, and at the same time there was warming and increased CO2, this is enough for me to expect there is a connection at multidecadal scale. I think the decadal scale is pretty much disproven. Other factors dominate at short intervals even when the amount of CO2 mass in the atmosphere has grown over 30% in less than 100 years.

Clearly there should be a Nobel Prize removal committee that reviews Nobel Prize awards a decade after they have been handed out. They can decide whether the award deserves to stay with the recipient, or whether it should be revoked. “Keep the cash kid, but hand the medal back.” This would help re-establish some credibility to the whole process.

I agree 100% about your assessment Hugs. A little bit of stable background warming has been a good thing for the planet, as compared to life in the LIA just 250 years ago. CO2 is probably the least of our problems.
We have only had a total of .85 C warming since 1880, and half of that was from natural variation. So if human kinds share of that is only +.42 C in 137 years, I don’t think we are in any danger zone based upon that. A bit of warming is better than a bit of cooling.

But I wonder what has more heat accumulation properties: CO2 radiative forcing or land use change on a planetary scale. We almost never talk about land use change here, or heat sink effect, or rarely do I hear it discussed anywhere else. I support the hypothesis that CO2 is fairly even background heat everywhere and fairly small in absolute terms of temp increases. But land use change with massive amounts of convective heating from equatorial & mid latitudes to polar warming to twice the rate everywhere else is what causes wacky weather and a loopy meandering jet stream, which causes different weather events to unfold. This is where we can say with certainty that there is a small discernible human caused climate change. IMO, it is land use change that is really the elephant in the room when it comes to understanding the totality of climate change for which is what humans are concerned with, and the bit of global warming that we have managed to eke out is only half the picture. Maybe it is our collective human footprint and not our carbon footprint we should be looking at?

The bottom line, as we all have know forever, is that we all talk about the weather but WE JUST CAN’T CHANGE IT! Puny humans are incapable of making a difference, the best we can do is adapt. Personally, I would welcome a 0.3 C increase in temps. But who lives in the global average temperature, anyway? Is there a place on the planet where the global average prevails? These are all meaningless numbers when it comes down to what side of the mountain you live on, how close to the equator or the poles.

If the earth had the climate of the Hawaiian Islands, I could live with that.
By the way, with their steady seasonal climate, do the islands show any increase in temperature over the last 30 years, or evidence of changing climate?

“ do the islands show any increase in temperature over the last 30 years”

Of course not, otherwise the multi-year news “headlines” would be ……. “The Hawaiian Island vacation “paradise” will soon be melted away because of CAGW”.

They don’t publish Yearly Average Temperature Increases/Decreases for places like Hawaii, Death Valley, CA, etc., etc., …….. because the changes in “average temperatures” are pretty much “flatlined” during the past 40 to 50 years …….. so no “hottest evah” to be reporting.

AndyG55 Please read China’s commitment under the Paris Agreement. China’s commitment is for its emission to peak by 2030 and it will try to peak earlier. This means that China could increase its emission without limit until 2030. Before this commitment was placed on the table at the UNFCCC, the US and China had preliminary agreement that US will reduce its emission by 25 per cent and will try its best effort to reduce by 26 per cent while China will have the option of increasing its emission as much as it would like until 2030. This was covered by a joint communique during Pres Obama’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart. This is the reason with Pres Trump having second thoughts on the Paris Agreement, China is every willing to take the leadership in implementing the Paris Agreement .

“China’s commitment [in the Paris Agreemet] is for its emission to peak by 2030 and it will try to peak earlier. This means that China could increase its emission without limit until 2030. Before this commitment was placed on the table at the UNFCCC, the US and China had preliminary agreement that US will reduce its emission by 25 per cent and will try its best effort to reduce by 26 per cent while China will have the option of increasing its emission as much as it would like until 2030.”

Let’s see Democrat or Republican Senators defend this in a Senate hearing on the Paris Agreement.

Obviously China has a distinct advantage over the U.S. in the Paris Agreement. Even people who don’t pay much attention can tell it is not fair to the U.S. Let’s see the Senators try to sell this kind of deal to the American people.

AndyG55 Please read China’s commitment under the Paris Agreement. China’s commitment is for its emission to peak by 2030 and it will try to peak earlier. This means that China could increase its emission without limit until 2030. Before this commitment was placed on the table at the UNFCCC, the US and China had preliminary agreement that US will reduce its emission by 25 per cent and will try its best effort to reduce by 26 per cent while China will have the option of increasing its emission as much as it would like until 2030. This was covered by a joint communique during Pres Obama’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart. This is the reason with Pres Trump having second thoughts on the Paris Agreement, China is every willing to take the leadership in implementing the Paris Agreement .”

eo, read the actual speech by “H.E. Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China”

As in so many alarmist/activist/greenie/trollop leavings, their third/fourth rewording seriously twists reality.

“China pledges to
&bull peak CO2 emissions by around 2030 and
&bull strive to achieve it as soon as possible, and
&bull by 2030, reduce CO2 per unit of GDP by 60-65% over the 2005 level,
&bull raise the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to about 20% and
&bull increase forest stock by around 4.5 billion cubic meters over 2005.

“China pledges to peak CO2 emissions by around 2030” meaning No Reduction!
Seriously, there is zero promise here to reduce CO2, at all!

“by 2030, reduce CO2 per unit of GDP by 60-65% over the 2005 level”; another meaningless lip flapping distraction. Just try to identify actual CO2 per unit of GDP now! Then consider how one will determine CO2 per unit of GDP in the future.

Don’t forget, China is certainly not changing attitude on how much detail is actually provided to international spies.
Doubt? eo?
Please visit China and start taking pictures of CO2 and non-CO2 GDP production operations! Adding on a few pages of input/output calculations would seriously cement the impression given.
We promise to be amused, that simpletons actually believe China is playing on an even field.

“raise the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to about 20%”; which is another distraction obscuring what fossil fuel operations are actually consuming/emitting.

“increase forest stock by around 4.5 billion cubic meters over 2005”; well, that is certainly meant to warm the hearts of eco-loons. It represents another area impossible to verify.

China has only committed to keep working as they have been working, until and unless China decides to change. Eco-loon’s changing word meanings to fit their “Paris” fantasies.

if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets.

The trouble was many countries meet their targets by increasing emissions, so the ‘but’ there is kind of incorrect. It would be more proper to say if the U.S. curbs less than what was ineffectually planned by Obama’s administration, but China increases emissions as much as planned.

I do not know enough about US politics, but perhaps the Democrats have made a silly decision on calling Kushner out. He may have been more damaging as a mole within the White House and acting as a check on Trump’s ambitions.

I do know enough that dangerous times lie ahead as democracy throughout the Western World is being seriously threatened with attempts to undermine a democratically elected President, the results of a democratic referendum calling for the UK to leave the EU, and the placement of technocratic governments throughout the West (such as in Italy), and non elected unaccountable NGOs wielding far too much power and influence.

“I do not know enough about US politics, but perhaps the Democrats have made a silly decision on calling Kushner out.”

It’s much ado about nothing. These “bombshell” revelations are a smear tactic on the part of the MSM. Their article accuses him of colluding with the Russians and then buried way down in their own story, they admit that what Kushner has done appears perfectly legal and has been done in prior administrations, including the Perfect One, Mr. Obama’s administration.

These kinds of stories have just enough of the unknown to them that they allow reporters to twist the meaning of the events any way they want.

This “Russian Collusion” narrative is all the MSM has to try to damage Trump, but it’s going to run out of gas eventually if no actual evidence of wrongdoing is found, and it looks to me like it is a complete fabrication by the MSM. They take the truth and then give the public half the truth and half is leftwing spin.

Propaganda and lies like this do have their effects on the public, especially with the relentless reporting going on about it now, but the lies might also backfire on the propagandists if there is no “there, there”.

Don’t believe anything the MSM says. They have a political/ideological agenda. Their agenda determines how they see the world and how they report the world. Their world is a world of delusion, and they are the ones giving you your news.

My husband and I came back to Canada from our 6 months in the Bahamas 2 weeks ago next Monday. We are cold, we are almost suicidal from not seeing the sun for 2 weeks. The grass has not started to grow and it is the end of May. Our heating fuel has gone up $50 a month because of the cap and trade Ontario now has to “fight climate change” Gasoline has gone up, food has gone up and the costs of everything else has gone up. I haven’t seen any change in the climate for the 30 years we have been living here but now we are paying extra to stop climate change. Sorry progressives, I am done, we cannot come back here anymore.

Send a thank-you note to Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government for their “Green” energy program and their “Carbon” tax! By next Spring the voters of Ontario will send her an eviction notice. By the way, total electricity generated by Wind in Ontario today (May 27) at 10:00AM was exactly One (1) MW out of a total of 14,822MW.

At least all the solar panel farms would generate 10%-20% of installed capacity in daylight even if were raining all day. I really feel sorry for Ontario folks…they haven’t had good governance for a very long time and the state of the economy shows how messed up thing really are. I am worried Kathleen Wynne resigns and you elect another liberal govt in, like last time. And the opposition guy, Brown, isn’t all that exciting to think he could turn things around. With a 1/3 trillion in debt, Ontario is in serious problems and that should be a major concern to the rest of the world in how not to be stupid. But too late for Ontario and Canada is now going down the same path.

At summer insolation angles, my panels are about 15%-20% efficient on a cloudy day. Maybe a little less on a very dreary rainy day. In winter insolation angles, near 0 % efficiency. My point being, is that when the wind don’t blow, you get nothing. At least with solar when cloudy, you get a pathetic little. If you are off grid with solar, then that pathetic little might get you through the day…and hopefully you have a few batteries that are charged for the next few days.

3¢worth , would you mind giving me a link for this. I need it to inform a Canadian relative who is a fanatic about wind, and that’s what he blows out his a$s whenever he talks about it. Thanks. (Sincere request.)

By the way, total electricity generated by Wind in Ontario today (May 27) at 10:00AM was exactly One (1) MW out of a total of 14,822MW.

Here’s a link to a page showing what a crock wind power is in Ontario. Thanks to government mismanagement, Ontario has the most expensive electricity in North America. It’s about three times what they pay in Quebec and fifty percent more than they pay in the next most expensive province.

Same here. I have lived in the same area for decades and still grow the same things during the same seasons. I also cant grow the same things that wont grow here in certain seasons. The whole thing is just a big make work project.

and we will report with screaming headlines the most alarmist position we can find, anyway. Doing anything else would be fake news, right?

The MSM is a parody of itself. They have changed themselves into a vast Pravda with no news in it, to Izvestia with no truth in it. People are so desperate to skip MSM, they quote RT, which has better lies than Pravda ever had.

Agree.
The BBC News top website has recently changed – lots more ‘fun facts’, BBC ‘explaining’ a lot of things that folk should know – ‘What is an election’ or similar; some ‘Must See’ and ‘Most Watched’; Full Story, which is magazine pieces from the archives; and Most Read.
In the last category, anything with Kim Kardashian in scores higher that anything referencing Fat Boy Kim, the Peril of Pyeong-taek.
Sad.

Temperatures vary by 10 degrees or more from day to night or from city to city with no ill effect.

World crop and grain harvests continue to increase from year to year yet we are led to believe that we are facing disaster which can only be avoided by closing our reliable power generators and spending billions building solar and wind generators which cannot be relied on for constant supply.

Europe and much of Australia is already well down this path of destruction. China is the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and has promised not curtail its development of new coal fired power until 2030.

Donald Trump is the only man who can save America and the World and reveal that the climate change emperor has no clothes.

“Although world cereal production is set to decline in 2017, supplies are likely to remain large with next season’s cereal ending stocks remaining close to their record high opening levels. The cereal stocks-to-use ratio in 2017/18 could however drop slightly below the current season’s level to 25.8 percent.”

Not where I live in Europe it wasn’t. We lost a few grapes but we still have some left from the 1800s. That loss was due to a late frost which happens every few years. Fruit this year is massive. Cherries, plums, apples etc and even the potatoes, which were hit badly by the frost are now 60cm high and green.

This last winter [2016-2017] was devastating for Europe and pretty bad even for the USA.

Yeah, so devastating I don’t even own skis any more. :) We were basically having a prolonged November that lasted for three-four months. No white Christmas. On the other side, the spring was slow to start and we were only a few hundred miles from the Schnee-zone where the white Christmas did happen.

“World crop and grain harvests continue to increase from year to year ”

Wrong. This last winter [2016-2017] was devastating for Europe and pretty bad even for the USA.”

Well now, sophocles, ….. iffen those farmers in Europe and the USA waited until last winter [2016-2017] to harvest their grain and other crops ……. then I am damn sure the results of their harvesting was devastating.

Yes it was a harder than recently winter and a late and cold Spring and this year’s vintage in France is going to take a hammering.

But in Burgundy I am already picking strawberries and expecting bumper crops of blackberries and pears. Local farmers were happy enough (which is about as happy as a farmer gets!) with the rape crop and at this stage see no reason to be worried about the maize or the wheat or the sunflowers.

The current weather pattern is looking close to ideal — three or four days of sun (though to be honest a touch cooler would be better) then a few days of decent rain and back to a dry warm week again. I don’t know what’s happening anywhere else of course but isn’t that the point? There is no such thing as global warming or global cooling. All we have is weather. Ours is looking good for the next month; sorry if your isn’t!

The Paris is a mighty deal, because it drops temperature by almost 0.1K / 100 million people. There are 7,500 million people in the world, so if they all do the same, the overall result is 7 degrees C! Wholy moly! By the sound of it, we are badly screwed anyway by the same worst case scenario. Was that mentioned in that Seth Borenstein hit-piece? No? How surprised I am.

Strangers from distant lands, friends of old, you have been summoned here to answer the threat of Climate Change. Earth stands upon the brink of destruction; none can escape it. You will unite or you will fall. Each race is bound to this fate, this one doom. Bring forth a solution, Mr. Trump.

” to deliver a temperature shift so tiny that it will take a century to even have a chance of detecting it”
Well, 0.3°C is detectable. But yes, it’s not huge. If Italy withdrew it would make a small difference. Likewise Mexico. Every concerted action is the sum of smaller contributions.

If I didn’t pay my taxes, the effect on the government’s functions would not be detectable. On this logic, the government could function if nobody paid tax.

Sorry Nick, the government only has one source of funding.
The Earth has vastly more sources of warming than man’s puny contribution of CO2, so eliminating all manmade CO2 emissions would itself be barely noticeable.

Chris, you’ve seen the evidence a thousand times, temperature reconstructions that show that Earth’s temperature has been above, below, and the same as today long before man invented fire. And all through that the cliimate of this planet has been favorable to all types of life for hundreds of millions of years. Long before man even existed the Earth’s temperature range was ideal for what was living here, and it is ideal for what is living here now. I don’t know of any period in Earth’s history where major extinctions were caused by temperatures being 2 or 3 degrees higher than average, do you? If you think man’s modern CO2 emissions are so devastatingly obvious, tell me what was so noticeably different about Earth’s 18th century climate.

No, it were not detectable. It would be if we could run a series of experiments, but we can’t, and it is pure speculation in any case.

China, India soon dominate emissions, and some funny pseudo action in western countries does little. So Trump is right, no point. Besides, Friends of Earth already ten years ago said we have ten years, and emission have been growing since. So we have a credible source telling we are late and Hasen will be called the prophet.

No, it were not detectable. It would be if we could run a series of experiments, but we can’t, and it is pure speculation in any case.”

“Yes”, a change in temperature of 0.3°C is detectable ….. but only if it is an actual temperature of some entity and one has instruments capable of measuring said change.

But when said 0.3°C is the resultant sum of a “percentage calculation” derived from hundreds of both actual and guesstimated “temperatures” …… then the aforesaid 0.3°C is not detectable, not measurable, not observable, not sense-able and not feel-able …… by man or beast or even a fish.

And of course, most anyone could run a series of experiments to prove or disprove the “warming effect” of atmospheric CO2, …….. but everyone refuses to do it ….. out of fear that the “results” will disprove their own personal beliefs.

It’s also total BS. IIRC Monckton calculated 0.02 deg C using IPCC figures so I can not image where they got this climate model from. Of course the indefatigable Seth does not manage to tell us which scientists ran which model.

It is just more unattributable claims by biased journalists citing wild speculations of alarmist scientists.

The problem is no-one else is making any reductions at all. What you have to ask yourself is whether the US should act unilaterally to lower emissions by 3 billion tons so as to avert one third of a degree in warming

— under the false assumption that everyone else reduces as promised —

when in fact no-one else is doing any reducing, and China is raising its emissions, as revealed by its public planning documents, from 10 billion to 15 billion tons a year. By the math, this will lead to rises of 5 times the US 3 billion.

Why do the Paris advocates not ask a simple question? China, it appears, doing the same arithmetic, is single handedly going to be raising global temps by 1.5C. Each billion supposedly raises by 0.1C from the US numbers.

Why is this a reasonable thing for them to do? Why for that matter is it reasonable for them to go up 5 billion, which, on the US math, will raise global temperatures by 0.5C?

This is not something that we are all in together. This is a bunch of countries that fully intend to get on with what they are doing, while demanding the US lower its emissions by amounts which will be rapidly swamped by their increases.

“China, it appears, doing the same arithmetic, is single handedly going to be raising global temps by 1.5C.”
I don’t think your China figures are right. But the basic issue here is that in 2013 (CDIAC figures) US emissions per capita were 16.4 tons/year, and China’s were 7.6. That disparity can’t last for ever.

” It is total emissions. “
Yes. But none of us can, solo, reduce total emissions. We can cooperate to do that. We can’t effectively cooperate if it is enshrined that one group can continue to emit twice as much as others. And that has to be worked on a per capita basis. We can’t expect the US to reduce emissions to the same total tonnage as Denmark. Nor China.

you are labouring under the delusion that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise, which clearly, it doesn’t.

But the tipping point for all this will come over the next 4 or 5 years when the IPCC is, again, forced to reduce it’s warming predictions. That will coincide with UK and US General Elections and full advantage will be taken of it.

But the basic issue here is that in 2013 (CDIAC figures) US emissions per capita were 16.4 tons/year, and China’s were 7.6. That disparity can’t last for ever.

Nick, you are right, and what is going to happen is that the per capita figures for China will rise from 7.6 to more than 10 tons, and then more than 12 tons. In the limit, they will rise to the G20 average.

Likewise, the same will happen with India.

It is right that everyone in China and India enjoy the standards of living that we in the West (Australia included) take for granted. This standard of living is powered by CO2 emitting energy, and apart from nuclear, hydro or geothermal there is no other source of energy that can power economic growth, and (for practical purposes) there is nothing that can replace liquid fuels for transport.

The issue here is numbers. The populations of China and India are greatly more than the US, and as their per capita emissions grow to 8, then 9 then 10 then 11 tons etc, global CO2 emissions will grow exponentially irrespective of what the US may do.

One must also bear in mind that under the Paris Agreement, neither China nor India have committed that peak CO2 emissions will be reached in 2030, and after 2030 they will cut back/begin to reduce their emissions. For all we know, China and India will continue increasing their CO2 emissions long after 2030.

Without any firm agreement by China and India to actually curb emissions, the Paris Agreement was always a dead duck, and nothing more than a PR exercise to try and sell the idea that the globe is doing something, when in reality it is not doing anything of substance to curb the threat of CO2 emissions (not that I personally consider CO2 emissions a threat; the world has too little CO2 and is too cold, and could do with both more CO2 and more warmth such that if raising CO2 leads to some warming, then that is a win win scenario).

To consider your tax analogy, would you pay state taxes if everyone else in your state decided not to pay tax? Would you decide to increase your payment of tax to make up the shortfall in tax revenues brought about by the fact that others decided that they would pay no tax.

US emissions per capita were 16.4 tons/year, and China’s were 7.6. That disparity can’t last for ever.

European Union’s CO2 emissions in 2015 were 6.9 t/year/person. I’m sure you notice the disparity.

Frankly, there are structural differences which severely hinder fair comparisons. That greens are not interested in emissions in China, is just because greens are not just unpatriotic but antipatriotic by nature.

Trump, on the other hand, is not antipatriotic. Chinese are not antipatriotic. See the parity.

Nick, you make the usual shift from total tonnage to per capita. Its the usual tack of the Paris defenders. But it makes absolutely no sense. Partly because as others point out, the per capita emissions are not what affects temperatures, but the total tonnage. Second because China is already emitting the same per capita as the EU.

Yet we are asking the EU to reduce, and allowing China to increase. By 2030, China will be emitting quite a lot more, per capita, than the EU, and far more tons. This makes no sense, and is one reason why we must all hope that Trump breaks Paris. Especially if you think that emissions have to be curbed to save civilisation.

Because Paris is not going to curb emissions. On the contrary, it gives the developing world, which for some crazy historical reasons is thought to include China, a license to increase as much as they want. Its not fit for purpose. It does not do what it is supposed to do, and what it is represented as doing.

The puzzle is the adherents and advocates. Are you really saying that you think it is OK for China to single handedly raise the global temperatures by 1.5C? Why on earth do you think that, if rising temperatures are so dangerous?

You doubt the Chinese figures. Just take their GDP growth plans in combination with their Paris targets for CO2 intensity per unit of GDP. They have accepted reducing the latter at the same time as they grow the former. The result, applied to 10 billion tons a year as of the time of Paris, is a 50% rise to 15 billion tons.

But for some inexplicable reason the apocalyptic tendency thinks this is OK, because the per capita emissions by then will only be 75% of US levels. And 125% of EU levels. This is total nonsense, and more than anything else shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the alarmist tendency.

If they really believed as they claim, they would be outside Chinese embassies all around the world with placards. But they are not. Its only the US that really bothers them, for reasons that cannot logically have anything to do with climate.

Nick
“If I didn’t pay my taxes, the effect on the government’s functions would not be detectable. On this logic, the government could function if nobody paid tax.”
Brilliant comparison. Let’s not forget the man looking to pull out of Paris doesn’t believe in paying taxes either and at present wants to reduce them for the rich.

In fact if you think about it, Mr Trump’s philosophy of doing and paying as little as possible for the maximum personal gain, is pretty much how he has lived his life. It is no surprise he is wanting the US not to do it’s part in the Paris agreement. His “contribute nothing but take the spoils” attitude is consistent if nothing else. After all, why she he pay his taxes, if the other fools will for him?

We don’t “pay” taxes in Australia. No, we don’t. For the most, we have “taxes” deducted AT SOURCE, ie, our employers retain that money and pay it to the ATO, on our behalf! Thanks! We have no choice, the tax is TAKEN from earnings before we can use it. That is un-earned income for the ATO. So your analogy is VERY WRONG. But that is not a surprise from an ex-Govn’t employee.

Re Eve Stevens …”we cannot come back here (Canada ) anymore … because of the failed Liberal climate agenda . Maybe that explains why all the Hollywood flakes failed to leave the USA after their little melt downs . BC Liberals just lost their majority and that wave is coming to Ontario and Alberta .
Global warming ..is a man made up crisis looking for a crisis . The whole overblown scam was based on mathematical climate models that are proven to grossly exaggerate any warming .

Why then would anyone waste $Trillions of dollars based on an hypothesis that has proven itself to be highly inaccurate ?
The truth is global warming fear mongering is at it’s core simply a means by which to justify and liberate tax payer debt fo the UN r globalist agenda and to funnel $Trillions through global warming preachers
and their businesses .

Should be an easy promise to keep . If not, rest assured there isn’t going to be any swamp draining .

The EPA’s climate mode, MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) was developed by scientists at the National Center of Atmospheric Research under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (your tax dollars).

It was my understanding that, according to MAGICC calculations, if you assume there will be a 3 degree temperature rise (caused by CO2 increases) if no action is taken with regard to reducing CO2 emissions; and then assume that the U.S. completely eliminates ALL CO2 emissions (an impossibility), it would result in a .137 degree decrease in the temperature rise through the year 2100. Furthermore, if you assumed ALL developed countries completely eliminated ALL CO2 emissions immediately, it would result in a temperature decrease of……….drum roll…….. .278 degrees centigrade by the year 2100!!!!!!!!

The Paris Accord does not come anywhere close to total elimination of all CO2 emissions, so how are they now calculating a figure that is at least an order of magnitude higher than MAGICC calculations???

I guess they just decided to fudge the numbers (what a surprise)…… or they spent more taxpayer dollars to create a “new and improved” MAGICC2.0…..to make it scarier to the masses.

Additionally, as it related to President Obama’s Clean Power Plan:

According to the EPA’s own calculations, Obama’s “Clean Power Plan”, by the year 2100, will cost the people of the United States six trillion, six hundred and thirty billion dollars ($6,630,000,000) and it will save, at best, 6/1000ths of 1 Degree Celsius by the year 2100. This is what they admit to…..I am sure the actual numbers will be much worse than that.

Under sworn Congressional testimony, Gina McCarthy would not disavow the meager savings in temperature that would result from Obama’s Clean Power Plan…….

And we still made it the law of the land……….

Unfortunately, Trump is going to keep us in the Paris Accords. It will be economic suicide and it will not have any measurable effect on the Earth’s temperature…and that, ladies and gentlemen, is in accordance with the sworn facts of Obama’s EPA scientists.

Apollo VII Astronaut and Scientist Walt Cunningham: “I’m here to encourage everyone to look at the data themselves, not just buy what they’re told.”

There is plenty of sceintific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. So any change in CO2 that US policy or actions affects the amount of CO2 in our atmosphre will have no effect on climate. The radaint greenhouse effect upon which the AGW conjecture is based has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including the Earth. Hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but sceince fiction.

” [ … ] deliver a temperature shift so tiny that it will take a century to even have a chance of detecting it.”

Wake up! It will deliver nothing other than $billions wealth redistribution. Merkel said so herself that the Accord was important to the new globalization framework, completely ignoring the potential climate effect.

Chances are you’re right. Merkel has a degree in natural sciences. It’s likely she’s unable utter Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Apocalypse mantra with a pokerface. She has to come closer to truth.

Her view-point to truth may be the following: Germany is a federal country. It enlarged towards the east and then the EU followed. The effect can currently be considered mutually beneficial on average. But it would be unrealistic to presume all countries are the same and the sustainability cannot be assured. Perhaps Germans can elect themselves a leader better suited to this century before the south-east teach her yet another lesson in cultural diversity.

That scenario assumed an increase in the decarbonization rate of 1% a year. This measure cannot really be compared to the Paris INDCs, which mostly are in absolute emissions rather than emission intensity. But it’s pretty aggressive (equivalent to decarbonizing the entire electricity sector, which is about 40% of emissions in many countries, in 50 years).

The US makes up only 17% of global CO2 emissions and this share is declining. The idea that emission reductions in the US alone could contribute 0.3ºC, or even 0.1ºC, is nonsense.

It is not that easy – keep in mind:
The US is the biggest importer of foreign goods world wide – so a substantial share of the emissions of China, Germany, Mexico etc. are actually emissions which must be attributed to US consumers.
And the US do not represent “only” 17% of the world population.

1. Attribution is not the same as responsibility
2. In this case: Yes!
Your reasoning is identical to the reasoning of solar power plant owners who think their roof top installation is perfectly emission free. Totally ignoring that the production of their subsidized tax money grabbing virtue signaling is causing substantial environmental damage someplace else and more likely than not will never be able to compensate the amount of used primary energy and CO2 emission during its proposed lifetime.

Alberto says…”This results from using a transient sensitivity of 1.35ºC per doubling of CO2 – which is what the surface temperature records suggest.”
————-
The surface warming , if caused by an increase in GHG, is an affect of GREATER tropspheric warming! Since the troposphere is warming much slower then the surface, then saiud observation of surface warming CANNOT be caused be an increase in GHG. Therefore obseved climate senstivity, even if 100 percent of troposphere warming is ascribed to GHG, is MUCH lower then the modest number you state.

97% of pscientists agree, that the sow of the invisible flying pig can have up to 3 litters per year with up to 15 flying piglets per litter.
In case we stop building windmills and solar power plants, that are known to prevent flying pigs from propagation, model calculations based on a worst case scenario prove that in 100 year from now the entire earth will be covered 27 feet deep in piglets of this invasive species.

Of course and even skeptics say, ‘Technology will save us in the future’
Oh yeah?
Lets ask British Airways right now, or the UK National Health Service from last week.
One Person somewhere inside those organisations, just one, goofed and brought down/crashed national and global enterprises. And we could choke on popcorn watching the ensuing buck-passing.

Then Merkel goes on about Globalisation. There’s one turkey that really is ‘Oven Ready’
Do us all a favour Donald, turn up the gas

There are two assumptions being made by the authors of the article about the effects of not committing to the Paris accord. The first is the questionble, but at least arguable effect of CO2 on future temps. But the patently dopey assumption is that, without the Paris accord, U.S. CO2 emissions will continue not only unabated, but probably increasing in the future. Aside from the rather hilarous situation in which the majority of CO2 reductions have occurred because of the substitution of gas for coal fired power generation because of fracking, which these alarmsts oppose, the big, ultra stupid assumption is that power generation and private transportation, which
together comprise the vast majority of carbon emissions, will continue to do so. I’d like to know exactly how that will be possible, given the apparently imminent domination by electric cars, thanks to a newly perfected cathode manufacturing technology which will usher in low cost, more effective lithium auto batteries, and the certain domination by molten salt reactors in the power generation arena. These stupid alarmists are pushing the absurd notion that the mentioned technologies are and will remain stagnant for the next 100 years!!!!!! And that only very costly, inefficient technologies forced on all by the Paris accord is a solution. Talk about clueless people.

“…technologies are and will remain stagnant for the next 100 years!!!!!” Just so.

The major flaw with the Stern review and the flaw in this and virtual all catastrophic predictions. 87 years ago, 1930, has the same comparison to today that today does to 2100. Keeping a quart of milk cool required men with saws, out on a lake, warehouses full of insulation, horse drawn wagons (I remember the iceman’s horse drawn wagon in the early 1950’s) and a crudely insulated box with about 3 cubic feet of space. No comparison in terms of energy used for the net output.

As pointed out by Richard Lindzen in his 2008 paper, “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?”, Openheimer was co-founder of the Climate Action Network of NGO’s and became the Barbara Streisand Scientist at Environmental Defense. He was subsequently appointed to a professorship at Princeton University. He is still an adviser to ED.

So unintended consequences result from greens’ good intentions, also. Maybe such mishaps will teach them to be a little more humble so that when the same type of accidents happen with (what they consider to be) less green technologies, they won’t bitch and moan so much.

btw, I don’t remember a lot of bitching and moaning about the EPA turning the Animas River orange. Can you imagine the media hysteria leveraging that image if that had occurred under (orange) Trump’s term?

The issue of USA withdrawing from Paris agreement: so called scientific groups come up different impacts on global temperature: 0.1 to 0.3 oC by the end of the century [in 87 years] if USA increases the carbon dioxide with that. This shows none of them have the clear view on the sensitivity factor. Let the so called warmists come up with the realistic sensitivity factor and say, is the increase in carbon dioxide realistically increasing the global warming?

The Trump effect must be the exact opposite of the Gore effect. When Gore turns up the temperatures plummet and it snows and hails. When trump turns up there is a slight and sluggish temperature rise generated in the inflamed minds of Climate Scientists who see their Gravy Train being derailed.

These Chicken Little “scientists” are squawking loudly, and making ever-more wild claims about what “will” happen to climate if the US doesn’t kowtow to world demands, and torpedo its own economy, trampling on the Constitution at the same time. What they really fwar though, is that if the US pulls out of the Paris “agreement”, the whole charade will fall like a house of cards. And that is exactly what will happen.

There are a dozen independent observations and analysis results that support the assertion that the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions, so the US leaving or not leaving the Paris climate ‘accord’(PCA) will have no effect on planetary temperatures.

It is expected however that the US leaving the PCA will result in a sudden increase in fake news concerning climate, the PCA, and green scams.

Falling planetary temperatures is the other factor that may affect the discussions concerning the fake science.

One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America would add as much as half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.

Aside from the fact that this is just another computer model …er… simulation, since when is 0.3 “as much as” 0.5?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say it like this?

“One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America wouldn’t even add a half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.”

The Paris Accord, implemented or not, will have no identifiable effect on climate.
The observation that CO2 is a ghg (greenhouse gas) is a shallow penetration of the science and means only that it has an absorb/emit band within the range of significant earth OLR (outgoing longwave radiation). Delve deeper into the science and discover that CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.

Here is why.

1) Essentially all absorbed outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy is thermalized (i.e. shared with surrounding molecules).
2) Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
3) Emission from a gas is quantized and depends on the energy of individual molecules.
4) This energy is determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
5) The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution favors lower energy (longer wavelength) photons.
6) Water vapor exhibits many (170+) of these longer wavelength bands.
7) The Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution in atmospheric gas molecules effectively shifts the OLR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to the lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor. The ‘notches’ in top-of-atmosphere measurements over temperate zones demonstrate the validity of this assessment.
8) As altitude increases (to about 10 km) the temperature declines, magnifying the effect.

The only thing countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring is the increasing trend in water vapor (WV). (‘Otherwise’ results from declining net effect of ocean cycles since 2005 and declining solar activity which has been declining since 2014 and dropped below ‘breakeven’ in early 2016). Average global atmospheric water vapor has been measured and reported by NASA/RSS since 1988 and shows an uptrend of 1.5% per decade. WV has increased about 8% since the more rapid increase began in about 1960. This is more than 2.5 times the expected rate from temperature increase alone (i.e. feedback).

Further discussion of this with graphs and links to source data are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com which also identifies the factors which do cause average global temperature change (98% match 1895-2016).

The warmer temperature is welcome but the added WV increases the risk of flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dikes, etc.) should be upgraded from 100 yr floods to 10,000 yr floods.

Your link is excellent, oceans, solar and wv, and their interactions explain much. Add the Milankovich variables, which I realize are to some degree included in the other three, and we get close to climate explanation. The problem is the complex interaction of these, along with other causal variables, which we have not yet figured out, makes modeling the system beyond our present capabilities.

Here is what actually needs to happen. The CO2 endangerment finding must be reversed. Otherwise, cancelling the Paris agreement alone really doesn’t do a whole lot about bringing coal and any coal related jobs back in the US. There will never be another coal plant built in the US for electricity generation built so long as the Endangerment finding exists and all those useless but extremely onerous EPA regulations put on the coal industry (simply to kill it) since 2000 are scrapped.

After consideration of the Alley Greenland ice core data showing three periods of significant climate cycles of optimums after relatively short cold periods, I have identified the period oh cold known as the little ice ge as a period of cold. It follows that iN a cyclical climate system that a period of warming will follow. Examining the recent temperature increase I observe that it is increasing and I can not find any quantifiable causal relationship with CO2 that is separable from this natural climate cyclicity resulting in rising temperature. THEREFORE my prediction based upon established Scientific method is that Trump can do what ever he wants to regarding and it will not change the climate temperature trend. I thus find the CAGW blather uncompelling and obviously relying on a robust truth to carry a significant political misrepresentation. Unfortunately this is the nature of constructing false assertions and as such are powerful tools.

As at 1500UTC today the recorded temperature range on earth is 108.6C. I live in Hong Kong and the current temperature range throughout the territory is about 8C, which, coincidentally, is much the same as the daily variation. The annual max temperature variation is typically around 25C but has been known to be above 30C. All other regions will have their corresponding range variations.

So, my question is, where is a rise of 0.3C over 80 or so years going to make a noticeable iota of difference?

It is absolutely ridiculous to take a measurement – such as ‘global temperature’ – that is based on real readings, adjustments to real readings, and extrapolations from readings and then use accuracy number in the tenths of a degree. The error bands must be HUGE. Huge enough to swamp a piddling 0.3 guess.

President Trump the Paris agreement is an I.Q.test.
It is obvious that you are intelligent and you have money enough.
This leaves you no need for greed.
A passion for uncorrupted science can be your brilliant legacy.

Pulling out of Paris is necessary but not sufficient. Like the Lernaean Hydra, the green monster will grow more heads after you cut one off. The administration needs to have a plan for on-going actions to continuously retake ground lost over the years. As another WUWT article indicates today, there is not going to be a single great ‘victory’ just as there was no single great ‘defeat’ in the many years that have led us into this dreadful situation where science has been so deeply corrupted in the pursuit of a green political chimera.

Scott Pruitt will probably already have an appropriate scheme in mind, but he needs support to help gather some momentum after a Paris Clexit.

“Nick Says ” It is total emissions. “
Yes. But none of us can, solo, reduce total emissions. We can cooperate to do that. We can’t effectively cooperate if it is enshrined that one group can continue to emit twice as much as others. And that has to be worked on a per capita basis. We can’t expect the US to reduce emissions to the same total tonnage as Denmark. Nor China”

Seems Nick has finally admitted it has nothing at all to do with saving the world from catastrophic global warming. It all has to do with fairness. Consider: MSM has promulgated the narrative that adding “X” amount of more CO2 to the atmosphere will kill almost all life on the planet (which is basically parroting what the CAGW Climate Scientists are claiming will happen), However, Nick appears to believe the earth will be just fine if China adds 4 “X” more CO2 to the atmosphere as long as the US cuts back by 0.1″X”, such that China and the US reach per capita parity. Nick, on one hand, sure seems according to your types we are all going to die if China reaches US parity, so guess to Progressives/Dems it only matters if it’s the US that kills off the world and it’s inhabitants. I therefore must conclude that even you do not seem to believe that China and India adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere is much of a problem. Their CO2 apparently has little to no affect on the planet and will NOT kill anyone, right? If the CAGW types are right, then per capita CO2 is totally irrelevant to saving life on the planet, yet that is all they really seem to be interested in. Maybe the CAGW types could argue that it wasn’t fair that the US got to use up ALL the CO2 budget, but none-the-less, according to them it is already ALL USED UP!! Anymore kills us all, not just anymore from the US.

Delve deeper into the science and learn about thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy among gas molecules. CO2 has no effect on climate, has never had and will never have. It does not matter who puts CO2 into the air or how much. The increasing water vapor however . . .

These so-called ‘forecasts’ of such minuscule temperature changes so far ahead from effects that have never been properly quantified except by models that do not even now forecast the present condition show just how unscientific the present science is.

Trump should most certainly exit the Paris agreement and for a renewable period of five years, require equal funding to both sides of the scientific debate and enforce peer review from both sides too. Learned societies should then be required to give equal status to authors of presentations from both sides for that same period.

this is old study from 2014, writers of this and newer study are saying that Trump didnt unsterstood their study and that White House took “better” ideas from old study, from new study it is 0,6 to 1,1 C

A little math:
air layer is difficult soils: 4r^ 2.pi = 5,7.10^ 17 kg., and CO2 per year is increasing 3. 10 ^ 9 kg., the ratio is 3: 5.7.10 ^ 8.
Second, it is important that climate change is caused by the mutual relations of the planets and the sun, as modern science does not understand. Tramp intuitively realizes the error of all claims on all conferences. It is necessary to confirm what I am announcing and there will be no fear of global warming, but we’ll know for all time as the climate changes.